K S PRAKASH Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is for declaration that the allotment of site made by the Bangalore Development Authority (the B.D.A.) in favour of M/s. Seethalakshmi Hall Flour Mills Limited, Bangalore, consisting of marginal land adjoining site No. 17/B of Industrial Suburb, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, as null and void ab initio and also vitiated by mala fides and further for quashing of endorsement dated 13-2-1987 vide Annexure-Q. The petitioner has also sought for a mandamus to the B.D.A. directing the B.D.A. to put the petitioner in possession of the marginal land aforementioned in accordance with the communication of allotment dated 18-7-1967.

(2.) The father of the petitioner since deceased by name K. Srinivasalu was allotted an industrial site bearing No. 17/B situate in Industrial Suburb, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, measuring 252 + 243/2 x 236 + 300/2 by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, on 16-9-1962. Possession was taken on 23-2-1963 and subsequently the marginal land adjacent to the site allotted also came to be allotted in favour of K. Srinivasalu in accordance with the resolution of the erstwhile C.I.T.B. passed in subject No. 202, dated 7-7-1967 at the rate of Rs. 8-50 per square yard for a total amount of Rs. 1,06,240/-. The marginal land in two bits measured 256 + 116/2 x 550 and 160 x 60 + 0/2 and allotment was communicated to K. Srinivasalu on 18-7-1967. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by the allottee by cheque dated 24-7-1967 to the C.I.T.B. towards the value of the marginal land allotted. This payment was acknowledged by the C.I.T.B. by letter dated 31-10-1967/3-11-1967. The allottee requested for extension of time for payment of the balance amount since he could not pay the entire amount forthwith on account of his financial position at that time. extension of time was sought on 11-5-1970 and time was granted for 90 days for payment of the balance under intimation issued on 13-5-1971. But on 26-12-1970, K. Srinivasalu passed away leaving behind a large family and also huge commitments. After the death of the allottee, the eldest son who is the petitioner applied to the C.I.T.B. on 22-9-1973 for transfer of the marginal land to his name agreeing to pay the balance sital value which was due to the C.I.T.B. The C.I.T.B. by its letter dated 22-9-1973 called upon the petitioner to produce the Death Certificate of the petitioner's father, joint affidavit and an indemnity bond of the other heirs for taking further action. On 10-10-1973, the petitioner furnished the Death Certificate and on 20-12-1973 submitted the joint affidavit and the indemnity bond as required by the C.I.T.B. By letter dated 22-4-1974, the C.I.T.B. informed the petitioner that a balance amount of Rs. 81,151/- was due towards the value of the marginal land allotted to the petitioner's father and asked for payment of the same together with interest at 9% per annum before 30-4-1974. The petitioner requested for payment till 30-5-1974. On 16-5-1974, he paid Rs. 90,000/- to the C.I.T.B. and he was asked to pay the balance of Rs. 38,744/- beforc 5-6-1974 and, on the petitioner seeking time for payment, was granted time till 8-7-1974. On that date, the petitioner paid Rs. 35,000/- by cheque and for payment of the balance amount again requested for time. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the entire balance amount due in full settlement of the arrears and intimated the same to rcspondent-1 by letter dated 16-8-1974 and also requested for condonation of delay in payment. The C.I.T.B. condoned the delay and accepted the amount with interest on belated payments. Thus, on 16-8-1974, the petitioner had cleared all the arrears of the amount payable towards the value of the marginal land together with interest on the belated payments. The petitioner expected that he would be granted Possession Certificate and that the Khatha would be transferred to his name. But till 1976, no action was taken by the C.I.T.B. after having collected the total sum of Rs. 1,48,744/- as the full value of the marginal site with interest.

(3.) The petitioner made hectic efforts by personally meeting the officials of the C.I.T.B. requesting for possession of the marginal land. But there was no response. Out of sheer despiration and frustration, the petitioner wrote to the authority on 8-3-1976 asking them to 'atleast refund the amount. The letter was referred by the C.I.T.B. for legal opinion to its Law Officer who gave an opinion on 2-9-1976 that refund cannot be granted since there was no provision for claim of refund. On 12-7-1977, the petitioner personally met the Chairman of the B.D.A. B.T. Somanna (respondent-3) and stated his difficulties. Respondcnt-3 after due consideration of the full payment made by the petitioner of the arrears with interest and also in view of the non-refundability of the amount received by the C.I.T.B., (succeeded by the B.D.A.) issued instruction to the officials to grant Possession Certificate to the petitioner and the instruction was noted in the order-sheet of the concerned file. Thus, there was no refund of the amount paid for the marginal land but there was an instruction by the Chairman to the concerned officials for grant of Possession Certificate to the petitioner. In other words, the request for refund was rejected in sum and substance, according to the petitioner.